> I'd start with the fact that it's 21 years later, and that the 'matrix is gender binary and agents are transphobes' makes zero sense to anyone who has seen the movie.

Makes sense to me, and I saw the movie. In fact, it validates that a lot of casual connections I saw in the film when it first came out (and throughout the trilogy) were intentional, and I'm a cisgender heterosexual Catholic that's not super prone to seeing LGBT themes everywhere.

Of course, I also got the “humans are processors, not energy sources” thing before reading that it was the Wachowskis intent, and the dialog about “batteries” was added at the studios insistence after test audiences found the concept confusing (but it's also clear that they didn't do anything much with the power sources thing but dialog from an unreliable narrator, and people-as-processors is more consistent with the presentation of pretty much everything in the film, and the whole trilogy.)

> Unless trans folk can slow time to dodge bullets, which would make me rethink my own gender I guess.

Metaphor. It's a thing distinct from simple literal presentation.

The switch thing is not new. Here is a source from 2014 https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki/Switch?oldid=27170

The agents are a stand in for authority, and cultural normativity. They literally kill anyone who refuses to follow the rules of the matrix. Its very easy to to see this as a stand in for a society that refuses to accept people who are different.

That's still 15 years. Why not say, 2 or 3? This reminds me of a 'Han shot second' type thing. There's a million examples of creators lying after the fact.

And if that was the real message, should not the 'real world' feel more beautiful and free than dystopian and depressing?

I'm not trying to discredit the author as a person, trans people, or the ideals..just the movie.

It was the first thing i could find in google. I mean wikia didnt even exist as a company in 1999.

> And if that was the real message, should not the 'real world' feel more beautiful and free than dystopian and depressing?

On the contrary, i think that supports the message. I don't know what its like to be trans, but i'm pretty sure its not all rainbows and butterfly's. The characters in the matrix decide it is better to live as their authentic free self as opposed to being in the gilded cage of the matrix. I think that is a great metaphor for transitioning.

> There's a million examples of creators lying after the fact.

Fwiw, i do believe that a work should be considered separate from authorial intent, especially post-hoc authortorial intent. In this case, i think the work supports what the creators say, and its much more compelling than say harry potter where there is very little support in the text for the things jk rowling said later.

Just the name makes sense: switch, i.e., switching genders. It's cool because it both literally works and is a kind of CS pun

Sure, which is why the word of authors undergoing transition at the time is worthless, and all the other clues. /s

It makes 100% sense to anyone who has seen the original screenplay floating on the internet since forever, which has more detail.

Why do you think there's a character that is a different gender in and out of the Matrix? (Switch.) It's not typical even in cyberpunk genre.

Why put in the doubts about being the one, or the pill rather than some other references?

Why put the woman in the red dress in the movie at all and make that a philosophical point?

Why say that general people (not unplugged) would defend the matrix when it is only agents attacking?

Why did the authors self-insert in the movie in a subtle rather than overt way? (Scene with cleaning windows.)

A full blown blockbuster directly about transitioning would be a literal box office flop back then, and even now. Imagine that.

At the time I watched the thing I believed the story to be about coming out. Believed many of the references to be gay culture. That was back in about 2000. It is actually completely clear now even with author's stamp on it.

The idea of a gender switch between online and real life has been a meme since at least the early 90s. 18/F/Cali anyone?

I don't understand the pill reference, other than that they behave diffently as medicines.

The woman in a red dress is...a woman in a red dress. Please elaborate.

I'm willing to be proven wrong here, I didn't even particularly like the movie, I just feel like the connections are rather vague.

It reminds me of a time in elementary school I won some award for a drawing I did because of my use of limited colors to express something. Truth is I was just lazy and liked red and black, but people see what they want. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

To express my own take, it was more about government, society, and the inevitable end we would come to some day as resources constrain. To say that's wrong and it's about the individual (neo) feels wrong, to me.

Edit to add -

One of the great things about works is people being able to take their own meaning away from things. Whether it's my view of societal collapse, a gay man's view of a person coming out, or a trans person's view of being trans, I like to think nobody is wrong. When an author then boxes it in after the fact with such vague references feels like an affront to the work.

> I don't understand the pill reference, other than that they behave diffently as medicines.

Trans people often take hormone therapy in order to become their true self, just as the characters in the matrix take a pill to "wake up".

Edit: because i can't directly reply anymore, replying here to your response on pills. I agree that by itself, it means nothing. Pills can mean lots of things to lots of people. Its not one individual thing that makes the movie an allegory about trans people. Its the pattern and combination of elements that make it an allegory. Any one of the various minor plot elements or aspects of the theme that relate to the trans "experience", on its own, mean nothing. Its that there are so many such elements that all fit together.

Idk what the trans connection is to the woman in the red dress. I always just took it as a nod to how in movies the dangerous female characters always wear red dresses (think #6 in bsg, but many other examples)

> To express my own take, it was more about government, society, and the inevitable end we would come to some day as resources constrain.

But in the movie resourses weren't constrained due to overpopulation, but due to war. And even then, people may not have lived in luxery in zion, but we had no indication that people were doing without.

The only character who talked about over-population and resource constraints was Agent Smith, and he was the villian

> I like to think nobody is wrong

While good art can support multiple interpretations, i definitely think that interpretations can be more or less wrong. E.g. Anyone saying the matrix is actually about the benefits of double-entry bookkeeping, is straight up wrong.

Edit: lol, i just realized that the sequels were all about how the equations were "unbalanced" and neo is the result of things not adding up. Maybe it is about double entry book-keeeping after all.

But tons of people take pills. I take aspirin when I have a headache, and a mild anti anxiety pill at times etc. Some people take pills for blood pressure, some for anti psychotics. Equating pills to hormones is doing a disservice to the 99.9 percent of people who take pills for other reasons. When I think red pills I think Sudafed, blue NyQuil. Maybe Neo had rhinitis after all :).

I'm not mad at all IF this was truly a trans movie, like some. I just don't buy it, and attribute it to the likes of JK Rowling. A combo of some mild mental illness and/or grasping for fame or brownie points.

You should look up what "allegory" means.

The difference is that you're not the creator of Up.

This isn't an arbitrary ex post facto ret-con. This is someone finally feeling comfortable enough with who they were to tell the actual meaning behind their creation.

Jaded, insensitive curmudgeory doesn't make you a better person, you know. If you're lucky enough to know who you are, and to be able to express that identity without fear of harm, oppression or ostracism, then you could at least have the common courtesy to respect someone who—until recently—couldn't do so.

As you've shown, apparently I can't express myself without being insulted. So where does that leave us?

If being told to have some respect for others is insulting to you, then we're at an impasse.